>>579721>seen so many posts trying to tie Russian essentialist narratives to multipolarity wat. seems like pure strawmanning, coz I certainly didnt see any of that shit, unless you take into account the shitpost waves during nafo raids
>Russian state itself is the harbinger and leader of such an order it is a crucial part of it, both because of its resources and its military power. Unless you think preventing nato from completely fucking syria and iran is irrelevant to multipolarity, or that the sanctions giving finally the political push needed for actively killing petrodollars isnt relevant, or that offering security alternatives to neo colonized africans country isnt important.
The ukraine war itself is the biggest challenge to the us empire unipolar order it ever faced, and its cascading effects are what allowed multipolarity as a real development to take place, even if a lot of groundwork had been done and the position of china at this juncture was crucial as well.
>Your Z bros are dragging multipolarity through the mud what the fuck does that shit even mean. Dont you have any actual analysis to oppose ? Or is multipolarity bad because there are "reactionary" (by lib standard) states benefiting from it and working towards it ? Is that it ?
>and ends up as a terrible power anyways and forces other actual progressive movements to defeat itand that should prevent us from supporting the current progressive movement, because in the future the contradictions will be different and they wont be on the "right" side of historical development anymore ?
aint that like seething about the capitalists replacing the feodalists while its happening ?
>ends up as a terrible power anyways and forces other actual progressive movements to defeat it<implying anglo empire was the actual progressive movement<missing this literally allowed PRC to be created